[zebrahead]

What do you suggest? A candidate who has ZERO shot of winning like Patrick Hughes?

We need seats. Period. In deep blue country like Illinois, Delaware, or Massachusetts a staunch conservative candidate is a practical impossibility. There is a reason Peter Fitzgerald didn’t run for re-election in 2004. He would have lost badly.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I stated loud and clear we needed a Reformist candidate. This race was a joke from the start. Just electing people that have an “R” after their name guarantees nothing unless that person is committed to a Conservative agenda (and in Illinois’s case, being OPPOSED to the corrupt political machine). Kirk could care less about either clean governance, or a Conservative agenda. If he’s elected, he will go to the Senate to maximize dissension. I’ve seen this same song and dance routine over and over again, and I know how it turns out.

And as for Fitzgerald, the corrupt Combine ran him out, and the lead thug in running him out was one of those wonderful liberal Republicans like Kirk named Ray LaHood. LaHood was rewarded with a Cabinet seat by Zero for all the good work he did in running out the best Senator the state had since Ev Dirksen.

[Dr. Sivana]

There is a reason Peter Fitzgerald didn’t run for re-election in 2004. He would have lost badly.

No. He was told by Baar-Topinka and company that he would not be supported because he was looking into corruption by both parties. He is why Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) has been making so many indictments.

At the time it wasn't clear who the nominee for the Dems was going to be. Jack Ryan was polling well until his scandal, and he was MORE conservative than Firzgerald. If you are going to make misstatements about that race, don't bother posting. A self-funding incumbent U.S. Senator with a soft right image would be happily accepted by any sane party operation that wasn't corrupt.